The World View of Jurassic Park

Dr. Ray Bohlin

The Intent Behind Jurassic Park

Driving home after seeing the movie Jurassic Park in the
first week of its release, I kept seeing tyrannosaurs and
velociraptors coming out from behind buildings, through
intersections, and down the street, headed straight at me. I would
imagine: What would I do? Where would I turn? I certainly wouldn't
shine any lights out of my car or scream. Dead give-aways to a
hungry, angry dinosaur. Then I would force myself to realize that
it was just a movie. It was not reality. My relief would take hold
only briefly until the next intersection or big building.

In case you can't tell, I scare easily at movies. Jurassic
Park terrified me. It all looked so real. Steven Spielberg
turned out the biggest money-making film in history. Much of the
reason for that was the realistic portrayal of the dinosaurs. But
there was more to Jurassic Park than great special effects.
It was based on the riveting novel by Michael Crichton and while
many left the movie dazzled by the dinosaurs, others were leaving
with questions and new views of science and nature.

The movie Jurassic Park was terrific entertainment, but it
was entertainment with a purpose. The purpose was many-fold and the
message was interspersed throughout the movie, and more so
throughout the book. My purpose in this essay is to give you some
insight into the battle that was waged for your mind throughout the
course of this movie.

Jurassic Park was intended to warn the general public
concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but
also science in general. Consider this comment from the author
Michael Crichton:

Biotechnology and genetic engineering are very
powerful. The film suggests that [science's] control of nature is
elusive. And just as war is too important to leave to the generals,
science is too important to leave to scientists. Everyone needs to
be attentive.(1)

Overall, I would agree with Crichton. All too often, scientists
purposefully refrain from asking ethical questions concerning their
work in the interest of the pursuit of science.

But now consider director Steven Spielberg, quoted in the pages of
the Wall Street Journal: "There's a big moral question in
this story. DNA cloning may be viable, but is it acceptable?"(2)
And again in the New York Times, Spielberg said, "Science is
intrusive. I wouldn't ban molecular biology altogether, because
it's useful in finding cures for AIDS, cancer and other diseases.
But it's also dangerous and that's the theme of Jurassic
Park."(3) So Spielberg openly states that the real theme of
Jurassic Park is that science is intrusive.

In case you are skeptical of a movie's ability to communicate this
message to young people today, listen to this comment from an
eleven-year-old after seeing the movie. She said, "Jurassic Park's
message is important! We shouldn't fool around with nature."(4) The
media, movies and music in particular, are powerful voices to our
young people today. We cannot underestimate the power of the media,
especially in the form of a blockbuster like Jurassic Park,
to change the way we perceive the world around us.

Many issues of today were addressed in the movie. Biotechnology,
science, evolution, feminism, and new age philosophy all found a
spokesman in Jurassic Park.

The Dangers of Science, Biotechnology, and Computers

The movie Jurassic Park directly attacked the scientific
establishment. Throughout the movie, Ian Malcolm voiced the
concerns about the direction and nature of science. You may
remember the scene around the lunch table just after the group has
watched the three velociraptors devour an entire cow in only a few
minutes. Ian Malcolm brashly takes center stage with comments like
this: "The scientific power....didn't require any discipline to
attain it....So you don't take any responsibility for it."(5) The
key word here is responsibility. Malcolm intimates that Jurassic
Park scientists have behaved irrationally and irresponsibly.

Later in the same scene, Malcolm adds, "Genetic power is the most
awesome force the planet's ever seen, but, you wield it like a kid
that's found his dad's gun." Genetic engineering rises above
nuclear and chemical or computer technology because of its ability
to restructure the very molecular heart of living creatures. Even
to create new organisms. Use of such power requires wisdom and
patience. Malcolm punctuates his criticism in the same scene when
he says, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not
they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Malcolm's criticisms should hit a raw nerve in the scientific
community. As Christians we ask similar questions and raise similar
concerns when scientists want to harvest fetal tissue for research
purposes or experiment with human embryos. If Malcolm had limited
his remarks to Jurassic Park only, I would have no
complaint. But Malcolm extends the problem to science as a whole
when he comments that scientific discovery is the rape of the
natural world. Many youngsters will form the opinion that all
scientists are to be distrusted. A meaningful point has been lost
because it was wielded with the surgical precision of a baseball
bat.

Surprisingly, computers take a more subtle slap in the face--
surprising because computers were essential in creating many of the
dinosaur action scenes that simply could not be done with robotic
models. You may remember early in the movie, the paleontological
camp of Drs. Grant and Satler where Grant openly shows his distrust
of computers. The scene appears a little comical as the field-
tested veteran expresses his hate for computers and senses that
computers will take the fun out of his quaint profession.

Not so comical is the portrayal of Dennis Nedry, the computer
genius behind Jurassic Park. You get left with the
impression that computers are not for normal people and the only
ones who profit by them or understand them are people who are not
to be trusted. Nedry was clearly presented as a dangerous person
because of his combination of computer wizardry and his resentment
of those who don't understand him or computers. Yet at the end of
the movie, a young girl's computer hacking ability saves the day by
bringing the system back on line.

The point to be made is that technology is not the villain. Fire is
used for both good and evil purposes, but no one is calling for
fire to be banned. It is the world view of the culture that
determines how computers, biotechnology, or any other technology is
to be used. The problem with Jurassic Park was the arrogance
of human will and lack of humility before God, not technology.

The Avalanche of Evolutionary Assumptions

There were many obvious naturalistic or evolutionary assumptions
built into the story which, while not totally unexpected, were too
frequently exaggerated and overplayed.

For instance, by the end of the book and the film you felt
bludgeoned by the connection between birds and dinosaurs. Some of
these connections made some sense. An example would be the
similarities between the eating behavior of birds of prey and the
tyrannosaur. It is likely that both held their prey down with their
claws or talons and tore pieces of flesh off with their jaws or
beaks. A non-evolutionary interpretation is simply that similarity
in structure indicates a similarity in function. An ancestral
relationship is not necessary.

But many of the links had no basis in reality and were badly
reasoned speculations. The owl-like hoots of the poison-spitting
dilophosaur jumped out as an example of pure fantasy. There is no
way to guess or estimate the vocalization behavior from a
fossilized skeleton.

Another example came in the scene when Dr. Alan Grant and the two
kids, Tim and Lex, meet a herd of gallimimus, a dinosaur similar in
appearance to an oversized ostrich. Grant remarks that the herd
turns in unison like a flock of birds avoiding a predator. Well,
sure, flocks of birds do behave this way, but so do herds of
grazing mammals and schools of fish. So observing this behavior in
dinosaurs no more links them to birds than the webbed feet and
flattened bill of the Australian platypus links it to ducks! Even
in an evolutionary scheme, most of the behaviors unique to birds
would have evolved after the time of the dinosaurs.

A contradiction to the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs
is the portrayal of the velociraptors hunting in packs. Mammals
behave this way, as do some fishes such as the sharks, but I am not
aware of any birds or reptiles that do. The concealment of this
contradiction exposes the sensational intent of the story. It is
used primarily to enhance the story, but many will assume that it
is a realistic evolutionary connection.

Finally, a complex and fascinating piece of dialogue in the movie
mixed together an attack on creationism, an exaltation of humanism
and atheism, and a touch of feminist male bashing. I suspect that
it was included in order to add a little humor and to keep aspects
of political correctness in our collective consciousness. Shortly
after the tour of the park begins and before they have seen any
dinosaurs, Ian Malcolm reflects on the irony of what Jurassic
Park has accomplished. He muses, "God creates dinosaurs. God
destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man
creates dinosaurs." To which Ellie Satler replies, "Dinosaurs eat
man. Woman inherits the earth!" Malcolm clearly mocks God by
indicating that not only does man declare God irrelevant, but also
proceeds to duplicate God's creative capability by creating
dinosaurs all over again. We are as smart and as powerful as we
once thought God to be. God is no longer needed.

While the movie was not openly hostile to religious views, Crichton
clearly intended to marginalize theistic views of origins with
humor, sarcasm, and an overload of evolutionary interpretations.

Jurassic Park and the New Age

Ian Malcolm, in the scene in the biology lab as the group inspects
a newly hatching velociraptor, pontificates that "evolution" has
taught us that life will not be limited or extinguished. "If there
is one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life
will not be contained. Life breaks free. It expands to new
territories, it crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even
dangerously, but, uh, well, there it is!....I'm simply saying that,
uh, life finds a way."

Evolution is given an intelligence all its own! Life finds a way.
There is an almost personal quality given to living things,
particularly to the process of evolution. Most evolutionary
scientists would not put it this way. To them evolution proceeds
blindly, without purpose, without direction. This intelligence or
purposefulness in nature actually reflects a pantheistic or new age
perspective on the biological world.

The pantheist believes that all is one and therefore all is god.
God is impersonal rather than personal and god's intelligence
permeates all of nature. Therefore the universe is intelligent and
purposeful. Consequently a reverence for nature develops instead of
reverence for God. In the lunch room scene Malcolm says, "The lack
of humility before nature being displayed here, staggers me."
Malcolm speaks of Nature with a capital "N." While we should
respect and cherish all of nature as being God's creation, humility
seems inappropriate. Later in the same scene, Malcom again ascribes
a personal quality to nature when he says, "What's so great about
discovery? It's a violent penetrative act that scars what it
explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural
world." Apparently, any scientific discovery intrudes upon the
private domain of nature. Not only is this new age in its tone, but
it also criticizes Western culture's attempts to understand the
natural world through science.

There were other unusual new age perspectives displayed by other
characters. Paleobotanist Ellie Satler displayed an
uncharacteristically unscientific and feminine, or was it New Age,
perspective when she chastened John Hammond for thinking that there
was a rational solution to the breakdowns in the park. You may
remember the scene in the dining hall, where philanthropist John
Hammond and Dr. Satler are eating ice cream while tyrannosaurs and
velociraptors are loose in the park with Dr. Grant, Ian Malcolm,
and Hammond's grandchildren. At one point, Satler says, "You can't
think your way out of this one, John. You have to feel it."
Somehow, the solution to the problem is to be found in gaining
perspective through your emotions, perhaps getting in touch with
the "force" that permeates everything around us as in Star
Wars.

Finally, in this same scene, John Hammond, provides a rather
humanistic perspective on scientific discovery. He is responding to
Ellie Satler's criticisms that a purely safe and enjoyable
Jurassic Park, is not possible. Believing that man can
accomplish anything he sets his mind to, Hammond blurts out,
"Creation is a sheer act of will!" If men and women were gods in
the pantheistic sense, perhaps this would be true of humans. But if
you think about it, this statement is truer than first appears, for
the true Creator of the universe simply spoke and it came into
being. The beginning of each day's activity in Genesis 1 begins
with the phrase, "And God said."

Creation is an act of will, but it is the Divine Will of the
Supreme Sovereign of the universe. And we know this because the
Bible tells us so!

They Clone Dinosaurs Don't They?

The movie Jurassic Park raised the possibility of cloning
dinosaurs. Prior to the release of the movie, magazines and
newspapers were filled with speculations concerning the real
possibility of cloning dinosaurs. The specter of cloning dinosaurs
was left too much in the realm of the eminently possible. Much of
this confidence stemmed from statements from Michael Crichton, the
author of the book, and producer Steven Spielberg.

Scientists are very reluctant to use the word "never." But this
issue is as safe as they come. Dinosaurs will never be cloned. The
positive votes come mainly from Crichton, Spielberg, and the
public. Reflecting back on his early research for the book, Michael
Crichton said, "I began to think it really could happen."(6) The
official Jurassic Park Souvenir magazine fueled the
speculation when it said, "The story of Jurassic Park is not
far-fetched. It is based on actual, ongoing genetic and
paleontologic research. In the words of Steven Spielberg: This is
not science fiction; it's science eventuality."(7) No doubt spurred
on by such grandiose statements, 58% of 1000 people polled for
USA Today said they believe that scientists will be able to
recreate animals through genetic engineering.(8)

Now contrast this optimism with the more sobering statements from
scientists. The Dallas Morning News said, "You're not likely
to see Tyrannosaurus Rex in the Dallas Zoo anytime soon.
Scientists say that reconstituting any creature from its DNA simply
won't work."(9) And Newsweek summarized the huge obstacles
when it said, "Researchers have not found an amber-trapped insect
containing dinosaur blood. They have no guarantee that the cells in
the blood, and the DNA in the cells, will be preserved intact. They
don't know how to splice the DNA into a meaningful blueprint, or
fill the gaps with DNA from living creatures. And they don't have
an embryo cell to use as a vehicle for cloning."(10) These are
major obstacles. Let's look at them one at a time.

First, insects in amber. DNA has been extracted from insects
encased in amber from deposits as old as 120 million years.(11)
Amber does preserve biological tissues very well. But only very
small fragments of a few individual genes were obtained. The
cloning of gene fragments is a far cry from cloning an entire
genome. Without the entire intact genome, organized into the proper
sequence and divided into chromosomes, it is virtually impossible
to reconstruct an organism from gene fragments.

Second, filling in the gaps. The genetic engineers of
Jurassic Park used frog DNA to shore up the missing
stretches of the cloned dinosaur DNA. But this is primarily a plot
device to allow for the possibility of amphibian environmentally-
induced sex change. An evolutionary scientist would have used
reptilian or bird DNA which would be expected to have a higher
degree of compatibility. It is also very far-fetched that an
integrated set of genes to perform gender switching which does
occur in some amphibians, could actually be inserted accidentally
and be functional.

Third, a viable dinosaur egg. The idea of placing the
dinosaur genetic material into crocodile or ostrich eggs is
preposterous. You would need a real dinosaur egg of the same
species as the DNA. Unfortunately, there are no such eggs left. And
we can't recreate one without a model to copy. So don't get your
hopes up. There will never be a real Jurassic Park!